Advocacy for #3 precludes advocacy for #4.I guess this is a too complicated and foreign concept for most fans, but it's possible to think simultaneously that:
- nepotism is wrong
- nepotism seems to exist within the org
- Nash seems to be a beneficiary of it and has achieved his current role at least partially for wrong reasons
- Nash might be good at what he does and will be given a chance to show it
The definition of nepotism inherently implies lack of fitness for the job. That's why it is considered bad. Trying to say both is effectively trying to say "he's not fit for the job, but he might be fit for the job". It's self-contradictory.Please explain
According to which definition?The definition of nepotism inherently implies lack of fitness for the job.
I guess this is a too complicated and foreign concept for most fans, but it's possible to think simultaneously that:
- nepotism is wrong
- nepotism seems to exist within the org
- Nash seems to be a beneficiary of it and has achieved his current role at least partially for wrong reasons
- Nash might be good at what he does and will be given a chance to show it
Nowhere in my posts have I suggested anything like that even implicitly.Should we just have a rule against hiring former star players? That would have kept the Avs from hiring Sakic.
Advocacy for #3 precludes advocacy for #4.
Coaches and FO are two different beasts. The average NHL coaching tenure is like 2-3 years.
So taking Torts out of the equation, since you're just throwing him in there to inflate that number, we're not that far out of the norm. Vincent was an emergency hire who didn't get extended, so I wouldn't really count him either. That leaves Larsen and Babcock.
We still have essentially zero idea about what ACTUALLY happened with Babcock. He looked at people’s phones, big f***ing whoop. Reality is that whatever he saw IN the phone(s) in probably worse than his actions of looking at said phones. Literally did the shit he was probably asked and tasked to do. Then everyone joined the groupthink crowd and called for his head. Should have kept him around.Babcock was a case where he might have actually been the most qualified person for the job, with the most experience and the resume to back it up....and how did that work out?
All I want is to compete for a Cup. We have never come close to doing that.
What do you consider a team that can beat ANY of the teams on ANY night, that you would consider “competing for the cup”??
Because that’s what the CBJ team was for about 4 years, about 4 years ago.
It seems that you know exactly what happened.We still have essentially zero idea about what ACTUALLY happened with Babcock. He looked at people’s phones, big f***ing whoop. Reality is that whatever he saw IN the phone(s) in probably worse than his actions of looking at said phones. Literally did the shit he was probably asked and tasked to do. Then everyone joined the groupthink crowd and called for his head.
Genuinely do not get the hype for Nash in the front office. Trade request aside when he was a player, what parts of the organization have measurably gotten better under his direction?There’s no reason this needed to happen
This is where I'm at. There's definitely a factor of "look he's one of us" as the face of CBJ for so long. But it's not like it's unwarranted. Was it nepotism or favoritism that landed him the role of GM for team Canada and assistant the year before that? Or was it maybe that people around him think he has a good mind for putting together a good team?I'm inclined to agree none of us have enough concrete data to evaluate Nash's qualifications for the new role. So I'll take a wait-and-see attitude. (It's not like ownership is holding its breath waiting for my take on the move.)
Was it nepotism? I prefer "favoritism" because I reserve "nepotism" for blood relations or something not publicly known. But that's just me obsessing about semantics.
We might be wise to acknowledge the possibility that the organization did a real search for candidates and landed on Nash objectively. Skepticism, however justified, is not the same as proof.
So you have such a negative opinion about Rick Nash that you want a guy who is clearly much younger with much less hockey experience telling him what to do? The guy is not even 30 yet and has only worked in hockey for 3 years.I don't care what title you give him, as long as there's someone above him (Abdou) that will stop him from doing dumb stuff.
I get it, Sakic/Yzerman ... why not us? Cause those guys are hall of famers! First thing Nash should do when the owners crown him king of moneymakers, is taken that jersey down!
Quoting myself for posterityI still really don’t understand why people get their panties in such a bunch over what Nash does. Who cares? Lots of folks seem certain that he’s terrible in whatever role he’s in. How would any of us know?
He’s clearly highly thought of both inside and out of the organization.
He's a name people recognize from this franchise's past, therefore Bad and Forever Ineffably Tainted With Horrible Failure.I'm neither for Nash nor against Nash when it comes to his front office advancement. I simply don't have enough information to judge. But companies all over the world do this sort of thing every day as part of their business continuity plans. They identify talent and then attempt to develop those individuals through some combination of mentoring, formal education, and stretch assignments. That also often includes allowing people the leeway to make mistakes and learn from them. Viewed in that context I don't understand the anti-Nash sentiment.